"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

We begin with a classic internet meme, which is stated as a fact but so easy to check if you do investigate.

Now as you would expect this comes from the ultimate prize winning climate communication site Skeptical Science, who share the initial study 97% of scientists agree with this theory, which has been fully picked apart elsewhere so will stick to this second one.

Now oddly when looking for data to either support or refute this the first I came across was a major collection of peer reviewed literature which rejected global warming, compiled by all people Skeptical Science. Having written a list of over a hundred scientists myself I knew rejected this theory, such as Nir Shaviv and Harold Lewis, who left the American Physical Society as a result as he knew their stance was false based on, well, science. Therefore, for possibly the first time in my travels, did I come across a source who made a claim and proceeded to debunk it on their own website. Now I don't think I need to comment further besides to say in law such facts speak for themselves. Here is the page I first searched for on Willie Soon , the outstanding expert who along with Sallie Baliunas turn out paper after paper dismissing the claims of the IPCC one at a time. Of course he was eventually smeared and had his career wrecked by the 'management' who do not tolerate any diversion from the path. But rather than faff around for hours as I normally have to to raise enough material to create a picture large enough to consider, these clowns had done the whole lot for me. They even made a chart counting every single one, admittedly they claim many have none at all, but besides listing at least as many scientists who are clearly not part of any consensus, wrecking their parallel claim, they admit there is a pretty heavy opposition, and only left me the task to see if their paltry numbers of papers were genuine. Peer reviewed sceptics

Then to further compound their predicament, a similar site Denier List actually contradicts its own claims by making as long a list as they can showing the total lack of consensus over the climate after all. The truth, such as that behind 97% claims normally never seen outside a banana republic's election results, will not only come out far faster than the complex bilge around climate sensitivity and projections which they know perfectly well takes decades to disprove while they collect more and more money from us in the meantime, putting your head on the line to make specific claims based on existing verifiable facts is a stretch too far.

I suppose now I'll have to check some of Skeptical Science's claims of zero peer reviewed papers from specific individuals, although by publishing the list at all they have (along with Denier List) entirely blown apart the 97% list, as when you include the 32,000 or so scientists who signed the petition dismissing such claims would mean over a million scientists agree, probably more than actually exist at any one moment in time. Petition project They have therefore already destroyed their consensus claim themselves by listing the many equally qualified scientists who definitely do not agree with the rest, and there are (one similar source claims only two) a few (OK, 24 in their case) peer reviewed sceptical papers. I assume any individuals quoted would already have sued them had they been wrong on their figures, but you never know, sometimes I've seen such possible slanders lie untouched for years, sometimes the victim not even being aware of them. But that will be a time consuming project so will leave it here that the total of peer reviewed papers they have already raised makes their first claim entire rot and combined with their debunked 97% proves beyond any doubt they are a totally unreliable source of any information whatsoever.

However, just by using their own list the total peer reviewed papers exceeds their claim of 24 by 75 with a total of 99, although maybe some were outside that period, or not totally dismissive, or something. Oddly one of the greatest collections of temperature data ever assessed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Michael Beenstock and Nir Shaviv, which took the Mann and BEST datasets among others and found no evidence of man made warming was indeed peer reviewed, so they fall at the first hurdle I set up, and suspect more if not many more of their zero claims will also turn up to be false. Just a hunch.

Clue: I checked Fred Singer's publications, luckily Wikipedia has provided selections of each by name so have effectively provided a universal source. Score: Skeptical Science- 0 Wikipedia (see below, just a selection remember):

I may be contacting double Doctor Singer for his opinions next, and now would suggest each similar Wiki page will turn up similar results for all the other zero scorers. I admit I am not physically able to check each of these for peer review, but when weeding out the papers from the books and knowing the process would suggest most if not all the papers would be.

There is no difference in conspiracy theories on climate change. They are equally present on both sides, with of course the sceptics quoting the vast amounts of money flowing into the research and renewables system mainly from our taxes, and the believers quoting the money going to organisations promoting moderation and questioning is coming from what they label 'big oil'.

Therefore both accept human nature generally stinks, especially at the top, but disagree over basically which group is the worst, with one believing scientists, besides the odd rogue and denier, are basically decent, while businesses by default are greedy and crooked. The others distrust politicians and academics, who are both openly expressing ideological views about imposing their preferred ways of life on others without any authority to do so (as they work for us, they do not rule, as they are all our equals).

Let us look at the evidence. On the sceptical side we have direct quotes going back to the 1940s onwards of plans to rearrange the world economy, threats of climate change and global warming being the means to a new world order, coming straight from the highest levels of the UN and politicians. None is in dispute, all are direct and recorded quotes. Then we have Enron, the largest organised fraud in the 20th century, which created the foundation of climate policy, carbon trading, which is fraudulent as deemed so in a criminal court. It is no longer illegal as the law was changed, but it must still be fraudulent as the court put the board away for organised fraud by carbon trading. Therefore we know for certain both the foundation and means of controlling global warming are based on control and deception. I cannot see a single gap in that conclusion as many people have stated it is a fraud and carbon trading is confirmed as fraudulent in a court of law.

On the other side we have funding. The Heartland Institute and GWPF receive little money, and what they do is recorded and comes from a variety of sources. MoveOn.Org, the Sierra Club, Environmental Media Services, and many like them all the way up to the Climate Research Unit which is the UK source of the IPCC research were also funded by a variety of sources, many of them the same or similar as the first. Therefore we have a series of energy or oil companies, Shell, BP, Exxon etc, all funding both sides. It is all on public record, much of the funding for the CRU came from energy companies, as does for many environmental groups including WWF and Greenpeace. In fact said 'oil' companies are energy providers, tending currently to invest 1/5th of their companies in renewables, so benefit either way. George Soros, behind at least four environmental PR groups, recently sold a $960million holding in Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Other sources of funding such as the Rockefeller Foundation, entirely supporting the environmental side, is founded solely on Rockefeller oil money.

So our bottom line is both sides accept there must be a conspiracy, but disagree over which group are the conspirators. On my own research, all based on legal processes of discovery, show basically the same people are funding both sides, basically creating an artificial divide, and it would be almost impossible on funding and spin alone to decide who is being paid to lie or not. But at least if nothing else could we all accept those in charge are most probably mainly crooked, dishonest and working together to remove trillions (as stated in the latest UN meeting) from the economy, and whether you believe in warming or not, you are almost definitely being ripped off regardless, as the evidence guarantees the vast majority of those at the head of climate change are working together and dishonest. That is what we should unite to fight against, not each other as whatever our beliefs, we are all being hurt equally.

Thursday, 19 March 2015

This is not a true information piece, just a demonstration of dealing with misinformation techniques used by the dictatorial cheerleaders of any dishonest and corrupt regime, this century best represented by the global warming fanatics. Here is an archetypal statement made a moment ago using every trick known by lawyers and politicians, and as a result caused western law to ban such practices in a courtroom as it exploited witnesses and misled juries. The brother of the direct leading question is the false assumption, where the proposer sets it as a given "We all hate Jews/blacks etc/ want to reduce our carbon footprint/ want to shit in our neighbour's gardens (OK I made the last one up, but you get the picture)", and go on to try and sell you a product or idea based on not the fact but the claim presented as a fact. Over half of people (as proved in surveys) go along with it as it is like catching fish with a lure rather than bait. It looks like food, it moves like food, I'll eat it and be caught.

Here is the guilty statement:

"Denial
is such a sad mental state to be in...try seeking the help of a mental
health professional in order to cope with reality. You may feel better,
be more likeable and finally increase your decision-making capacity and
positive outcomes"

Besides its clear patronising stance, by beginning a statement with a claim of 'denial' it brings in both the existing followers, who already believe such nonsense, and the waverers who hadn't yet made their minds up. The remainder are free of ideology so simply feel insulted and walk away before the person tries to take their money, wife or house, or all three. It then makes personal insults, as if you could be 'more likeable and feel better' you're clearly shit right now according to their personal opinion. And when they expand you discover their term 'denial' doesn't mean the handful of people, mainly highly qualified scientists, who say CO2 cannot cause any warming, who actually call themselves 'slayers', but everyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 emissions will wreck the planet.

So even the few believers who are not quite as determined as they are to ruin the world's economy just yet, but totally buy into the GW trope otherwise such as Bjorn Lomborg are lumped together with all the others because even a small absence of acceptance of every single element is seen as a heresy and they see no difference between a 2% sceptic such as Ljomborg and the slayers. To them they are the same as Jews were to Hitler, one distant Jewish ancestor, and you got the yellow star and concentration camp. If you don't agree with the entire Koran, I mean UN, you are a heretic and only worthy, according to some, of the death penalty. I am not exaggerating, and speaking against global warming religion is being pushed as a crime by Al Gore and many like him.

Making an appeal to change personal is a smart trick. It makes the person take their attention totally away from the issue, back to them, and then to fitting in with society. It's basically saying 'Don't be like an outcast, come and join our club, you're not a Jew so why help or defend them, even defending a Jew makes you one of them and we will add you to the list'. Or denier, what's the difference, the mechanism is the same. The only difference being you can't stop being a Jew, but as a so-called denier, you are able to change sides and stop being an apologist, a Jew-lover, and join the majority who hate and persecute Jews just like Uncle Adolf told them to.

Of course these creeps wouldn't keep rolling out these tricks if they didn't work. For every one who resists some will fall, the trap was set and many simply see the words and take them literally. "I am a denier, denial is bad, I must stop denying or I may be convicted of a crime and even lose my life. I believe, I am converted." This is how the world has gone, with politicians and scientists working together to convert weak minds from Austria to Zambia and everywhere in between. That is a known, but the added information is how to see through these technically cheating manipulations of people's minds and thoughts and let them bounce off you like an inappropriate insult would naturally. Of course calling someone a denier is an inappropriate insult, as currently there is far too little known to have something to deny. But they treat it as certain as the sun rising each day and knowing the exact moment it will. Even though the actual warming they talk about has nearly all never happened.

So, assumption follows assumption. You're a denier, you do not accept reality. That is a complete state, like pregnancy. Something is either real or not. Global warming is a slightly known about potential which may happen in 50-100 years but none of us alive today will be likely to see it either way. That is their reality. The physical trend, requiring CO2 warming to cause humidity increased warming and then climate problems is a multi stage process which besides the CO2 rise responding with a very minor rise in temperature (the 0.8C is made up of nature (25-50% but no one really knows), and adjustments which raise a basically flat random trend to a hockey stick which ended around the end of the 20th century and has now worn off, the decadal trend now reducing per year. That is not anything but a minor response to a major change, a 50% rise in CO2. Add to that every previous warm period corresponded with a rise in CO2, but after the temperature rose, means CO2 is released by the oceans when nature warms the earth and follows the temperature, meaning its role is mixed at most, certainly not all as a cause of warming rather than an effect. In fact the long used holocene temperature records prove our current peak is a regular occurrence, the red herring was our burning of fossil fuel, and in fact it just happened to coincide with an inevitable rise, one which happened many times before and never before caused by CO2. And we are at a lower peak than the others.

Once you look at the context, the only thing you can deny is that we are at a natural regular peak, and maybe the rise in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature. I have yet in twenty or more years of reading the papers to see this single diagram which puts every other claim into context, and removes much of the weight from the claims man's output of CO2 and nothing else is responsible for the current warming, even though they cannot prove it and there are many other known causes, although not the exact degrees. Do I call people who disagree with this deniers? Not exactly, as proxy temperatures are fairly easy to revise, as the UN did three times so far, by conjuring away the medieval warm period and then bringing back a shadow of its former self. They claim new methods make it easier to measure the past, but so far not one scientist has ever questioned the diagram above, it is the best known holocene record, and therefore impossible to attribute today's rise on anything if it was always going to happen anyway. The longer record shows the same peaks every time, and happen approximately every 10,000 years, we were due for it right now, and we have it, but less than before, despite the additional CO2. If you can figure that out then there may be something to actually deny, till then this is the position and it is a complete uncertainty, one which is not open to a single claim of knowns, as even the temperature itself is mainly estimated by filling in gaps where there are no measurements, and altering for local conditions.

Ultimately denying it is uncertain is the only true sense of possible denial in man made global warming. All other claims and accusations are simply mind games played by the unscrupulous.

Once
you leave the known science the second part, the one applied by
politicians, is cost benefit analysis (CBA). That means not basing your plans
on knowns but possible alternatives. You lay them all out, then any
actions, and measure the total for each. The only science remaining
then, which unfortunately is of the very lowest usable level, is the
chances of each scenario happening, which is actually not possible to
know within reasonable bounds.

Our
biggest mistakes were acting on the worst case scenarios rather than
the mid or best. We have already paid our fines and taken our
punishments 50-100 years before we know if we were even guilty. That was
a result of politicians taking over and screwing the science and the
scientists. And no one needs to be a scientist to play out the
alternative results, that is pure data crunching.

I think by now we know the details. Make fossil fuel more expensive, or ban some altogether. CBA- everyone has less access to energy and everyone pays more right now, the poor suffer the most as it is an essential. Take taxes and subsidise wind, solar and biofuel. Would wind and solar exist for general use without subsidies? Almost certainly not. Could they ever supply a constant and variable on demand base load? Never. What does biofuel replace? Food and land for food crops, making food shortages and the remainder more expensive. Harm today for no known benefits now or ever.These are the major plans of the Kyoto Protocol, plus carbon trading and credits, both created by Enron and both deemed fraudulent by the court who prosecuted them for it. Cost, everything, benefit, total loss of money to big businesses. Result, no change in CO2 emissions since Kyoto began being implemented. Did they decide all their plans didn't work so they'd have to give them up? Of course not, if taxing doesn't reduce emissions tax more. If it doesn't still reduce them they've made a heck of a lot of money anyway, and that's a good thing. But not for us.

Monday, 16 March 2015

Having spent most of my life breaking the rules I have discovered how incredibly judgemental many people are, not because you are hurting anyone as that is what judgement is for, but because you are not doing things like everyone else. There is a hierarchy of activities people seem to assume are normal, and the more you tick the more normal you are. And if you don't do some they simply let you go.

The basic list are the usual ones, married, job, children, getting up early, going on holidays, and basically anything else 'most people' do, and if you don't do one or more you become increasingly isolated and ostracised. And if, like me (as I have the unfortunate authority to comment on this), tick none of them you are fucked, excuse me.

The glass half empty view is most applied to people, most of all ourselves. The only person normally judging you more than others is yourself, unless you've learnt not to as it's not our roles, we just do our best, and like taking exams, let others mark them. The half full doesn't look at things which are often not within someone's control (who can choose to get married and then find someone, and in time to have children as well), or have the health to work full time etc, and without stealing their money simply use their time in different ways and get their money for not being able to work one way or another.

Using my own life as an example (what do we know more about?), I lost my last regular job in 1997, having spent five years quite patiently going in every week regardless and doing bits of other things on my days off. One was voluntary work, originally a four year college placement I doubled up on as I enjoyed the youth work and ended up getting my shift paid, and helping out in a community centre after my counselling placement had finished. Most of the staff, including full time, were volunteers, they ran a theatre with some major names, and we then printed adverts and delivered them to schools to give to the parents when there was a children's performance. I filed and also took tickets at the door when they were really busy one night. And changed toilet rolls. Then someone recommended me for a paid job doing the filing in a massive company which kept me busy six weeks till the job was complete. These opportunities turn up and while unpaid work is endless paid work is very restrictive nowadays, unlike the 80s when I began.

After applying for 150 jobs in the first year after being made redundant, and getting three interviews, I carried on, and finally a shop I'd asked if they needed anyone called me to say they'd opened another branch, and after turning up to find it was on the far end of a shopping area beyond the busy part and town centre was not surprised when we didn't make a single sale that week, but was slightly surprised to get the call on Monday he was renting it out to someone else as it wasn't worth doing. That was quick. Later I got a letter saying I was now entitled to complete my professional training based on the experience, and used the time to take a very tough correspondence course, huge essays the size of a small thesis, and very high standards. That led to a professional qualification allowing me to apply for new jobs. There weren't many, and the year I began got one interview in a group of six and no further. However, in 2001 I also volunteered in interviewing and hypnotising people who thought they'd been abducted by aliens as I was qualified and interested in it, the only condition was to be passed on to the media whenever possible, as I'd always wanted to be on TV. Within a few years I had four filmings, two have been repeated regularly ever since. My mother, bless her, looks straight past the fact people are watching me around the world and laments the fact I've never been paid for it. Then I got my first article published in a mainstream magazine, also unpaid.

My point being that your time is precious, your money is secondary as can come from numerous sources, and as long as one is open then you can produce a lot more as you're working entirely for yourself with no profit motive. You then look into things you wish you could have done when you were working, and produce a lot more, including this very blog. The material here has been made into two web TV interviews and we are now working with my contact to get it on real TV. I've also painted, exhibited in the local gallery and sold a few online. And you know what, when the media and creative arts of any sort pay off they pay big time. You just need to cross that line and you are both getting the exposure and being paid for it. I do work when the work comes in, but don't rely on it.

But the general points is the criticism I get from many sides that I do everything wrong. Not badly or harmfully, but wrong. Why exactly is that? I don't sleep more than an hour or so more than average, but just in the mornings rather than at night, as I've naturally fallen into nocturnal habits. It means when people need someone at 3am they can call me. If I worked or got up at normal times that's one less person they could call when they were in trouble. My grandma didn't want anyone except friends and family helping her and had I worked then the calls to take her shopping every couple of weeks, to appointments, and spend the odd half day in casualty when she fell over may not have been possible. That time was more needed for other people, including my mother when her second husband died and I spent a week or two there, and stayed there once a week for a couple of years and always took her shopping. There wasn't anyone else as there are no brothers, sisters or cousins, just me. There still is, and for my father who needed his cataracts doing, had a haemorrhage, and spent most of a year being taken to appointments in town usually by me. No one else at all in his family except a cousin he barely speaks to within 200 miles.

I have wanted to be married since graduating in 1984 and having a job that could allow it. I planned a full time job, but doing postgraduate courses part time (full time cost many times more and only found them 200 miles away which would have cost the rent on top) so stayed at home and strung them out over three years. That forced me to work part time, and just did so many jobs it added up to full time. Seven years later (the courses were intermittent) I finished, and decided to leave the existing job as it was the sixth year of the same thing and the pupils I was teaching at the time were like a crowd of hooligans, unlike the poor ruffians at the youth club who grew up by that age and started behaving like adults. Having worked continually since before graduating (I took a year out), I expected to carry on, but the economy in London had changed, and took me over a year to find something part time working for a friend. That suited me, as I was a counsellor and needed time to build up that side, and do further courses, which I did until 2002 or so. Which takes me full circle to the end of that job in 1997, and combined with failing health, the anxiety gradually taking over every aspect of my life, was still looking for work but restricting the scope.

So, having the fewest common and conventional boxes, no job, no wife (despite thirty years of looking), no children (I spent a decade or two avoiding it, now I wish I hadn't), and get up after lunchtime, am a total dropout and according to many a failure. But are the two the same? I saved the money when I did work and bought a flat when they were still just affordable, and have used the spare time as I said adding qualifications. I do use them, but the area is flooded with others nowadays and far too few (extremely highly) paying customers available, as many can find adequate volunteers or wait and get free state counselling. But the parts I could control as far as possible were completed, but it's down to others to accept my numerous offers. Women, employers, publishers, you name it. Not all knockbacks but never in my say.

So read my stories and draw conclusions. We don't all have to work or follow any sort of a traditional life to have a full one. In fact, not working through whatever reasons, allows us to fulfil our true potentials as we aren't using most of our time working for others, making them more profit if not self employed. There are numerous books and teachings out there saying the same things regarding work, including Dr Larry Dossey who was too busy working to write his book, did his back in, and being confined to bed for six weeks wrote his book, created a best seller, and never worked in his old job again. We usually have something else in us which could produce more than we do at work if we were free to, and the quality of others' lives are all touched by it as well, whether your new audience, friends and family or others you look after, or increasing the pool of knowledge by teaching.

Van Gogh is my personal example, now the most expensive paintings in the world, who only sold one in his entire life. And think of Churchill and others who won wars or ran countries who also got up in the afternoon and worked very few actual hours. No one even knows when Einstein or other famous geniuses did their work and how many hours, they see the finished product, and if you then found out Einstein lived with his mother and never got married (not the case but could have been), would you have thought any less of him, and if so, why?

Thursday, 12 March 2015

After reading more details below about climate models, it reminded me of the thousands spent, not by foolish mug punters, but by governments (of course, it's not their money), on worthless empty boxes claimed to detect bombs, that of course they can get away with it in any form they wish, simply by telling people they work.

The story is here for anyone who missed it a year or so ago, and it wasn't a small scale short term scam, but one which went on for some time and sold units to governments around the world. TV detectors have been claimed to exist for decades as well, 'they can tell if you have a TV in the house even if it's turned off'. That was created not by some conman in a bedroom working under a PO box, but the British government, who got most people to accept this was possible, even though not a single member of the public has ever seen one. I'm not a scientist, but the ones I asked agree a TV puts out a very weak signal indeed, a lot less than a computer screen, and becomes a lump of dead metal and wood when turned off just like a rock. But crazy claims have no limits, so why not just claim a metal box can detect another metal box within a small area from some distance away as it is giving off electrical interference, but just to lay it on really thick, even when it isn't. No one really bothered to challenge this as they'd get busted for not having a licence either way so the sensible people bought it to avoid a criminal charge. In fact the reason TV detector vans worked was because everyone buying a TV, even secondhand, has to fill in a form giving the government your address. This is run through a database and any coming up licence free are sent a letter. Simple. They only have the remainder of people with TVs they got off a bloke in the pub and the method they use there is to go through all addresses, pick the ones without a licence, and send a letter by default asking you to pay it, and wait and see the few who claim they do not have one and knock on their doors. No van required.

Therefore most people can and have been fooled most of the time. Fake bomb detectors anyone could have checked, tested and opened were bought on trust, and no doubt some were even used to find bombs and by pure chance dug one up as they happened to pick a spot by random fortune that had one there, which in many areas would be quite probable as they are war zones. If they then kept going and found another one by then the user would be convinced they worked and keep using them even when they didn't and they got blown up by a mine. TV detectors are still part of British folklore and to this day no one has officially admitted they never existed as the scandal would be diabolical. People don't ask and governments don't tell. Maybe a Freedom of Information request would remedy that now, but they are entitled to refuse for various reasons, credibility being a major one.

Believing a machine can tune into an unplugged TV is no less idiotic (with no requirement for a single qualification to do so) than believing a computer can accurately model the entire world's atmosphere and get trends correct 300 years ahead (as does the UN IPCC). They began in the early 90s, so by 2015 we can easily read the random guff they spewed out was based on an inbuilt sensitivity to CO2, which, like the hockey stick, could only produce hockey sticks as those were the algorithms they were created from. Thus we end up with a multi-run projection, where around 100 differing versions of the same models were run, and 25 or so years later we can see the result. And the good bits, ie the ones before they diverged, were not actual model runs, they couldn't be as the models began at about the point they stop following around 1990, the rest were just run back to fit, which isn't even modelling but recreating the known past, something you do not need a computer to produce.

The error margin of course increases like a trumpet the further ahead you go. The normal limit in meteorology is 3-6 months, by then the chance of guessing is as high as forecasting so it stops there. These models however take the same chaotic complex information, plus the inability to include aerosols, clouds and water vapour, ie the three main feedbacks, and expect people to trust them, which of course most do. When you then read the range of error, extending ultimately on the unlikely but possible margins from 1.5-6C by 2100, an experiment impossible to complete as no one present in 1990 would be alive to see the result, and then whatever it is they can claim a goal as unless it's actually even lower (possible, but not higher as there are no genuine mechanisms to do so) whatever the temperature is, everyone will cheer and the writers will get posthumous Nobel Prizes. If someone (oh, they have) created similar programmes for shares and investments only an idiot would put their own money on the results, or horse racing (I don't think they have but maybe Michael Mann will now if he reads this, he's game for anything), but we have spent trillions worldwide since Kyoto in 1992 based on this worthless and clearly unscientific machinery of deception.

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is
projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the
concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per
decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}"

Now these were used to create worldwide policies, and the temperature since they were made has risen precisely around 0.00C per decade. No one has yet come out to suggest they may need changing, they are still being used today. Graph since 2000

Use your discretion and logic first, then your knowledge, combine the two and reject the rubbish. It's easy.

By request, the technical stuff: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC report 2001

Despite openly admitting the obvious (to anyone without a personal interest in the alternative), they continue using models, and even though apparently they say they've now improved a bit, it hasn't stopped them relying on the old ones which clearly get it wrong (as they factored in chosen sensitivities they didn't really know at all). That is the sign of a crook, not a scientist.

" A large disparity exists among various climate models in their prediction of global mean surface air temperature when atmospheric CO2 has doubled from present concentrations (figure 1). There are an overwhelming number of reasons why these differences could exist.Although each climate model has been optimized to reproduce observational means, each model contains slightly different choices of model parameter values as well as different parameterizations of under-resolved physics. The need to understand the sources and impacts of these differences was recently emphasized within the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that called for more quantitative evaluations of modeling uncertainty"

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters,
writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the
science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of
the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and
none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to
the current observed state”.

The same Kevin Trenberth who was caught saying in private "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

A confession and caught in the act. Normally that would mean an instant verdict and sentence.

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society:
"First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of
fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world
is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which
the models describe very poorly."

Hendrik Tennekes,
retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological
Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate
models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal
reason why I remain a climate skeptic."

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna
and president of the World Federation of Scientists:"Models used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and
invalid from a scientific point of view"

None of my comments above were from me as climate models are used by and for scientists, so all the errors and shortcomings were quoted from such sites directly. These are actually taught on some courses, so once qualified many scientists are fully aware they are unable to perform as claimed, but as the public do not then they plough on regardless, as that is what they were paid to do, ie they are indeed fraudulent. And remember, just because I am not a scientist, I get my information from them. This person however is, and apparently has the same views as it is his job and he knows exactly what they do. I'm amazed he still has any sort of career at all after writing this but maybe he's either won the lottery or was downsizing. Confessions of a climate modeller

Not a single climate model predicted the 2009-2010 El Nino or the 2010-2011 La Nina that followed.

I did.

My point is this,

There
are scientific papers published that finds that these ‘climate models’
violate the 'basic physics' - especially of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat
flow.

Now, this is one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer regarding the Earth's atmosphere.

I will quote one paper which states that,

"Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws.

The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy."

That means that entropy always increases and energy always dissipates according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for sub-grid fluxes, we
find that some of them try to use the Second Law of thermodynamics, and
some do not.

Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.

A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production.

The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data.

Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a negative bias.

Obviously,
the additional energy made available by this negative dissipation to
the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the
total dissipation is again comparable (for the wrong physical reasons)
at least for the boundary layer experiment."

That means this -

That the computer climate models falsely claim that entropy can decrease.

The
models are claiming - incredibly - that heat can 'negatively
dissipate,' or rather, concentrate itself, and that additional energy is
made available by this so-called "negative dissipation."

That is literally impossible.

So,
the climate models used by careerists and 'man-made global warming'
alarmists are in stark violation of the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics which, I continue to say, have not ceased to exist
because some people claim that pink-elephants-can-fly.

Every single climate model that has failed avoids those physical laws that govern the Earth's climate.

Those
running those climate models haven't a clue as to how the Earth's
climate functions, and proof of that comes from the fact that none of
them can forecast the seasonal weather or medium and long-range climate
conditions.

Here are the facts that they are in denial of when it comes to the lie of 'man-made global warming,' and that is:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04% which = 0.0004 of the atmosphere.

Man-made CO2 is 3% of that which equals = 0.0004×0.03 = 0.000012.

And burning fossil fuels is about 50% of that.

Therefore,

The amount of man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels is about 0.000006 of the atmosphere.

Now,
if anyone says - with a straight face - that that miniscule amount of
CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming they they do not have all 52
cards in their decks.

The
Earth is not isolated. It is not an isolated body. The Earth's highly
variable climate cannot be replicated in a laboratory, nor can the
Earth's climate be isolated from the Sun, Moon and planets, of which are
a part of the solar system that the Earth is a member.

The
climate models do NOT - repeat - do not recognize that all climate and
weather conditions begin in space. That is where the Earth lives and
that is where the causes are.

The failure of climate models is from that basic and serious error.

Your
comments, along with those of others, that do not recognize that fact
means that 'effects' are treated as 'causes,' which is a major reason
why the climate models used cannot even predict an ENSO, much less
seasonal weather conditions, or long-range climate.

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Apparently ever since the major oil companies helped fund East Anglia University's climate research unit, the main institution creating UN and world policy, big oil have continued to promote and fund projects designed to combat climate change.

Of course there are slight qualifications required, as in fact these are not only oil companies, they are all now energy companies, who make profits from providing energy. It may include oil, which in a restricted market can only increase in price when the markets are artificially skewed by government policies creating shortages, so they gain from guaranteed markets in wind and solar, created from our taxes, and increased prices for their fossil fuel which is caused by limiting distribution such as the Keystone pipeline which if implemented would reduce both costs and prices as a direct consequence, and banning drilling in many areas to 'protect the environment', keeping prices higher than they would have been by restricting supply. They only invest in what will increase their profits, they're businesses, not charities, and by investing in climate research and projects, adding to the billions from both governments and the numerous massively funded activist groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, as well as the Suzuki Foundation which pays for lawsuits against anyone criticising scientists, it is clear that what some people term 'big oil' simply work for what gets them the best results, and clearly most of that is on opposite side from the one they are accused of, although like the best rogue traders of course they do back both sides, who wouldn't in their position?

We regularly (daily) get accusations of the relatively few scientists who disagree with the official view that they have been paid off by the Koch brothers/big oil. Whether or not this is the case it accepts scientists can and maybe are being bribed to produce specific results.

This is very good. It is the first step. Once they accept scientists can and almost certainly are being bribed and do not follow the data but twist it to suit an agenda we can get going. If you then take their connected claim 97% of the scientists agree with the official view, most if not all get their money from governments, pressure groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and of course big oil (BP, Shell, Rockefeller, Soros etc, all major investors in both fossil fuel, and renewables, as there are now very few actual oil companies as they deliver energy by any profitable means).

Now we've accepted the principle scientists can be paid off (their claim re Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook, Richard Lindzen etc, all top level professors), is it possible to believe only those against the grain are the crooks, or it could be absolutely any of them?

We often fail to see the obvious even when it is regularly laid out in front of you, and it even took me this long to see this totally direct assumption that qualified scientists can be fraudulent by those on the believing side as well, something the others have said since the start, mainly as plenty of them have simply admitted it (whether directly or in hacked emails), something they on the other hand, have always denied assiduously. Except, they haven't. They simply said 'It's only the ones we disagree with who must be paid off, ours are perfect, look, even 97% of them agree'. Otherwise translated as 'All scientists except rare rogue individuals, are above bribery and corruption'. No, they have simply said all scientists who disagree with them (3% or closer to 50% if you look into it more deeply) are corrupt, but ours of course are perfect. This can only be an illusion (just like the 97%, which is entirely fraudulent as based on about 79/4000 respondents to a single general question who fully agreed and were specifically qualified), as if scientists are corruptible, using deduction, any scientist can be. Not mine, yours or the rogue who is only their own man. There is no other possible formula. Those shouting the loudest that highly qualified climate scientists are fraudulent are the very people who claim they are perfect, above all other professions proven to contain organised fraud- medicine (lysenkoism, eugenics), banking (Libor, Forex and gold price manipulation), the top police (Hillsborough), and science itself (heliocentrism, stomach ulcers, continental drift), although in science with continental drift the problem was in fact not fraud, but mass incompetence, as the consensus of scientists at the time (well over 99%) believe the continents were fixed in place, until, as often happens, one person working alone demonstrated all the others, the overwhelming consensus in fact, all equally or even more highly qualified and specialised, were totally wrong. As with the cause of stomach ulcers, a simple bacteria.

But we have crossed the line into a resolution. Climate scientists are in fact accepted by everyone on both sides as being potentially fraudulent. Disagreeing on their identity simply requires the normal evidential process, with confessions, however gained (as we are not in a courtroom), being the highest level besides provenly altered data. Hiding the decline, and Michael Mann's tree ring saga, where he left out every single tree ring except the one which created the hockey stick slope, were two such perfectly crafted examples. The 4-5 wavy lines showing temperature vastly increasing in the late 20th century all snaked across the screen except the yellow one, which stopped about 1960, and turned out that was the one which didn't in fact rise, so was simply cut off before it fell, contradicting the others and creating doubt and uncertainty, and hid the decline.

Deciding which ones are crooks is going to be a whole lot easier than proving the believers accept they can be. That is a done job.

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Extending the range of a narrower point can be the magnification required for all to see. Equality is a totally misunderstood political principle, as it has meant the majority of the left actually believe it means we are all born the same regardless of gender or physical and mental qualities, and as a result an entire misguided political ideology has grown up on the back of it based on an error.

Equality is a lot closer to the French principle, in that everyone's life is of equal value and should all be treated equally. That is it. Nothing more, beyond or greater, except possibly to extend that principle to animals, as they may be quite different from us but all are physical, alive and sentient and should be treated with the same respect.

Animals in fact are my main key to demonstrating the falsehood of the left wing view of equality. Cats and dogs. Both animals, domesticated and reasonably intelligent. But are they equal? That is a question you can ask the next lefty when they whinge about privileged education, or different expectations of women etc, the usual sort of whining accusations of bias. When they've given up trying to tackle a coherent reply (I doubt one would be possible), then start within the human range. If intelligence is created by the environment, then what would happen if you brought up someone with Down's syndrome with the family of a Cambridge professor? Would they start catching others up? Or with enough physical training could a woman lay as many bricks as a man, day in and day out? Of course there would be grey areas, overlaps and uncertainties, but that is the very point, if equality was the way they claim it is (and believe me, most do), then they should confidently claim every single goal was possible.

It clearly isn't, take as many similar examples as you want. So they are clearly wrong. QED

Britain's devolution policy has allowed what was virtually a single country (outside Scots law which applies British law under a different system) to demonstrate how with what is still a shared economy, one country can provide certain services the other claims it cannot afford. Therefore Scotland (who admittedly are partially subsidised under the Barnett Formula, but not that much) can still provide free prescriptions, hospital parking and most of all tuition fees (England average £27,000 for a degree).

That means even though Scotland barely have any more money than England, who claim they have to charge as 1) the NHS can't afford not to have the extra money for car parking and prescriptions and 2) We are no longer wealthy enough to allow degrees for nothing the Scottish system shares the same sources of funding besides the extra subsidies as England. The fact Tony Blair somehow created a system which meant up to 50% of school leavers were suddenly capable of passing a degree rather than the 5% till then, and it both meant that many more were no longer potentially unemployed for three years, and of course funding that many more students for nothing couldn't be paid for so they then had to charge directly. But somehow Scotland still manage it.

These three examples alone show the difference between costs and policies. What may be claimed as no longer possible due to the recession is exposed as no more than doublespeak when in fact a region under the same conditions is able to do both the small and larger costs without causing any suffering in the rest of the population, or taxing them more (as they are currently under the same tax system). It also of course outs the government as liars, as they of course can afford all these things but prefer not to. Even staff often pay parking charges in hospitals, and not just visitors but all patients have to pay as well. Imagine them getting a cab or public transport instead. A cab costs many times more so not worth it, while many outpatients may just crawl to their booking by car but not getting to and from bus stops and stations. And who suffers the most? The poorest of course. Exactly the opposite of why the NHS was created, to make healthcare identical regardless of means. Of course the same applies to prescriptions, although at least they are means tested so the unemployed do not pay, but everyone else does.

Even if students don't pay till after the event, we also used to have grants for all, and afforded them. That meant the poorest students not just got paid for their expenses, but got far more than the basic minimum. That was a heck of a lot of money, yet for decades the country afforded it. That now means even though the up front costs aren't there, the lack of grants puts many off, while knowing they will have to pay back a fortune for the rest of their working lives puts others off who may have more need of the whole amount than others with family support available. And as for grammar schools, the system which allowed the best pupils to have the best free education regardless, the best tool we had for social mobility and the cause of many working class children reaching the highest levels of society was abandoned, and now only the rich can afford the same type of focused teaching, better facilities and smaller classes. Direct grants were also abolished, wiping out free access to public schools for pupils who passed their common entrance exam.

Basically claiming economic hardship to avoid paying for certain services for all has been demonstrated to be untrue, as in this experiment we have a control in Scotland with almost the same economic conditions, yet they manage some extremely expensive policies England will not. But can.

Another lesson in real politics. They will cheat and lie to you, end of.

A little bit of structure behind world politics in the recent news. As a teacher I used to find examples of theories in practice, and this is a perfect one of how the Mafia, ie the world governments and those shady figures behind them, are mainly planned, controlled and manipulated with very little spontaneous events, whatever the media tell us when anything happens. In fact most have been planned for months or years, but we are just unaware of it.

The latest event (it wasn't in fact, nothing happened) was the Greek election and following results. I and many other insiders explained that Greece was being sacrificed by what we call here 'the cabal', in this case in the guise of the EU (they are not separate, see them as the European arm of the Mafia, who I prefer to call them as it represents them better than any other way), and because of the mentality of 'the masses' (in this case 77% of the Greek voters), persuaded the people 'there was no other option' than both stay in the EU and the euro.

As a result, if you have a choice between (pardon me, but the analogy is very close) pig poop, cat poop or dog poop, technically you have no choice at all. Syriza was simply a left wing version of poop, one which would offer everything, and as followed delivered precisely zero, as all observers fully expected. The two reasons for this were that firstly Syriza were actually a 100% conventional political party, unlike say Golden Dawn or even Ukip. Their official policy was identical to every single other conventional European party in power, ie EU and euro membership.

They never wanted to leave the euro, so it can't happen from their side.

On the other hand, of course the EU needs 100% membership continuity, so sacrifice poorer countries to maintain the political status quo, with the euro being a purely political system designed to bring about a single federal state, and not an economic one. Therefore they will spend and lose as much as it takes to maintain the total coherence of the euro and EU at all costs. Hence the agreement last week, almost inevitably to be followed by endless others. It will put Greece in recession for decades and make them suffer for generations, despite if leaving may suffer for 1-2 years and then recover. The Greek people do not know nor understand this as it's high level economics, but proven by both Argentina and Iceland if they simply want to look at examples rather than use their imagination.

In the end this little story demonstrates a number of things, most of all, besides the organised and planned nature of politics, how it was the people themselves who chose this fate, as they do have parties wishing to leave the euro but chose not to elect them, as do many other countries in similar positions. We can even create new parties if they do not exist, and vote them in if they are needed, so that is no excuse if there isn't one where they live. Greece can be used to demonstrate both the power we have if we wish to take it, and the fear we mainly have (77% of Greeks surveyed support staying in the euro) which stops us doing so and makes us hand it over to others we 'believe' can do it better than us, and still allow them even when they haven't done so. This is our problem, not theirs.